Prasius

iTrader: (1)

No - because most were free Polish Forces; same goes for the French. They fought for their own country but were based in the UK as the Germans had occupied their own.

However, those foreigners who actual members of the RAF - Yes, they should have been allowed to stay.

The rule is pretty bloody simple - were you a member of the British Armed Forces? Yes - Welcome! No - Find another way.

davegtt

No, the French, Dutch and Polish flew for the British. We didnt have planes to give to other nations back then to fight for their own land. All nations stood together as one back then and flew our planes. As Pete says, you have to draw a line at some point otherwise everyone will have some sort of claim to come here.

Not that Im arguing what Brown has said is right, just putting a spin on some of the rubbish thats being posted here

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Just because they flew RAF aircraft in RAF Squadrons, it doesn't automatically mean they were in the RAF. The administrative records would be very clear over which service they belonged to; it is the military after all - the military is quite good at keeping detailed records

Either way - if they were, then they've got a claim to citizenship as far as I'm concerned. Its not a complicated rule that would allow people to dodge and duck it, I'm not sure why anyone would think it was.

davegtt

Forget how official they were flying for a particular service. They still flew our planes on our behalf. Just shows how ignorant someone can be to defend their stance.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

*sigh*

No, they flew OUR planes, in OUR RAF Sqns, on the behalf of their OWN country.

Theres this little thing, probably unimportant and grossly misunderstood by many, called an OATH. That is the fundamental difference. A simple example: Free French troops in the UK would NOT have taken an oath to the Crown (they fought for France as their oath was to France); Americans flying for the RAF WOULD have taken an oath to the Crown (they fought for the UK).

davegtt

*sigh* OK whatever. Poland fought for Poland, France fought for France, Britain fought for Britain, nobody cared about each others countries when we were fighting the ****'s. Giving technicalities about Oaths means jack ****. The point is still the same.

Ignorance is bliss eh.

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I suggest you go to a French/Polish/Hungarian/etc serviceman who served in the UK during WW2 and tell him that his Oath to his country didn't mean jack ****.

I think you'd be on the receiving end of some strong words.

PeteBrant

Right, so by that logic a French pilot who single handedly shot down 27 planes, rescued the royal family from a **** plot to kill them all and followed it up by flying his plane into a doodlebug, would have less of a claim than an American pilot who broke his ankle wwhilst walking to his plane for his first sortee, and sat out the entire war in hospital. Simply because they took an oath.


And given that an "oath" has such importance, does it then follow tha we shoud let any non-EU national in that swears an oath, regardless of thier situation?

davegtt

Why would I do that? Im not talking to a French, Polish or Hungarian and Im not saying their oath means jack **** am I, I suggest you try reading and digesting my messages before replying and twisting words

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

Given the topic of this thread - pretty much, yes. There are many other ways to apply/claim for asylum/nationality which are far more open to abuse and would be relevant to far greater numbers of people than this.

I think its only right that foreigners who serve this country for their term of service be allowed citizenship. It fulfills a requirement/wish of the individual, and it fulfills a requirement of the State. Shouldn't that be the ideal purpose of all legislation?

Dave - I'm not twisting your words. Your the one who said their Oath means nothing; I simply pointed out that many of the people who we are talking about would disagree with that in the strongest way possible.

davegtt

I never said their oath means nothing though did I, again, I suggest you read my post again and take it the way it was intended.

PeteBrant

Like I said, a Gurka has as big a right as anyone to citizenship, but, do you extent that to a non-EU citizen that is a doctor or Nurse. How about someone that has spent 5 years working tirelessly for charity.

Are these people any less "worthy" of citizenship than a Ghurka?

moff1888

I work with a lot of Gurkhas and have deployed to various locations with them and you never get less than full commitment from them.
I firmly believe that if you serve in the British Forces you should be given the option to live in the country that you have fought and may well die for.

Previous Wars/conflicts and no doubt future Wars, these soldiers are still serving this country and will do for a long time (hopefully!!!)

I hold these men higher than 99% of people coming into this country yet they do not appear to be getting as much of a chance to stay.

GC8

Im all in favour of the Ghurkas.

Jamie

1800-2008 they should have the right to live here

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

I get the feeling what you really want to ask me is should military service give an individual special rights to citizenship over anything else?

Yes it should.

But then your talking to someone who thinks the world of Starship Troopers isn't actually that bad of an idea

moff1888

unclebuck

New Labour - New Britain

The bond of trust between the armed forces and theGovernment has been destroyed first by the liar Blair and now by Brown. This is a clear example.

CyprusScooby

Your absolutely right mate.

On another note, I read the other day that the Armed Forces Careers Offices had been inundated by so many Poles wanting to join up, that they were supposedly considering it. Like having Polish Brigades or something along those lines.

The Poles also had the highest percentage of kills in the Battle of Britain as well! And they mostly flew Hurricanes. Sorry, way off the track.

CyprusScooby

By the way, I hear the Gurkhas make excellent Curries! Not had the privelage to try one yet tho.

I'm all for them being allowed to stay here after military service.

I'm always impressed at how immaculately dressed they always are when off duty as well. Decent blokes and awesome warriors!!!!

RA Dunk

hey we dont want the fat doo gooding economy killing turd up here, send him to hell for all i care

andyno4

simple answer to all our problems... close the bloody gates and say we are full.

moff1888

I've had a few of their curries. The goat and deer were the 2 that stand out. They just sliced it up, bones in the lot. Quite nice.

RA Dunk

a bit late for that now, the worst thing britian could have done was joing in on the EU, since then its just been a case of floods of immigrants comming in sponging the place dry and those that do work send there money home putting f**k all back into the economy, no wonder brits are leaving this place in there thousands

Prasius

iTrader: (1)

They were considering reinstating Punjab (I think) battalions from British Indian's, as 'community leaders' said that it would be a great idea. But the Commission for racial equality - or some other lefty bunch of clueless morons - claimed that it would be divisive. Presumably thats why Labour is continuing on its plan of destroying the Army Regimental system with its relentless amalgamations - its divisive...

And Gurkha curries - are great.. as long as you don't mind picking the bones out of them.

CyprusScooby

Yeah thats what I heard. It sounds awful, but everybody I know that has had one, swears by them!